


TURN: A Study in Creator Politics and Unintentional Intentions

by puckity



Category: Turn (TV 2014)
Genre: Character Analysis, F/M, Fandom Analysis, Gen, Meta, Series Analysis
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2016-05-27
Updated: 2016-05-27
Packaged: 2018-06-09 11:11:47
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 8,903
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/6903484
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/puckity/pseuds/puckity
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>An exploration of the intersections between fandom trends and creator politics--and a consideration of the possibility that 3.04 ("Heart and Minds") may not <i>necessarily</i> be the end for Major Hewlett and his relationship with Anna Strong.</p>
            </blockquote>





	TURN: A Study in Creator Politics and Unintentional Intentions

**Author's Note:**

> Originally posted on [my Tumblr](http://puckity.tumblr.com/post/144542022970/turn-a-study-in-creator-politics-and) on 5/18/16.
> 
> You can follow me [there](http://puckity.tumblr.com/) too, if you want!

A little reassurance for the road: I know that a lot of TURN viewers–particularly those invested in Annlett and/or Tallster–are still reeling from last night’s episode (3.04 _“Hearts and Minds”_ ), but I want to encourage the fandom as a whole to take a few steps back and a few steadying breaths. Not to pull out my fandom senior citizen rocking chair (except I’m _totally_ pulling out my fandom senior citizen rocking chair), but I’ve seen some shit. Creators sabotaging their own shows, egos melting down in real time, fandoms imploding from the inside. I’ve also seen numerous repetitions of the same motifs–“shocking twists”, dubious cliffhangers, bizarre character and plot regressions–that sometimes spell doom for a show but other times are just part of its natural cycle. TURN is no different; it has had plotlines in the past that seemed irrevocable until a few episodes later, when they were no longer quite so hurtful and intolerable. If S3 is the first time that you’ve watched the show in its traditional once-a-week episodic form (like me), it may be difficult to retroactively examine past seasons through the same harsh lens. For example, how harrowing must it have been to be left with Hewlett’s kidnapping at the end of 2.05? Or with the lack of progress and information about of his situation in 2.06? Yet if you (like I did) ended up binge-watching S2 for the first time long after it had originally aired, those storylines seemed much more bearable–we had the momentum of the full series uninterrupted to keep us from totally freaking out.

Before I push that rocking chair back into its corner, let me make one more observation: fandom is–and has always been–somewhat fatalistic. The individual and collective obsessive nature of fandom (now and forever) coupled with the overabundance of reconsumable content (clips, interviews, gifs, meta, etc. that we can mull over repeatedly ad nauseum) and the periods of time between output (whether it is a week between episodes or years between series installments) has primed us for constantly escalating our feelings about and reactions to our beloved medias. We are always turned up to 11, because that is what studios and companies want (fiercely dedicated fans who will consume as much of their product as is made available to them) and modern fandom has–among other fascinating and positive things–made it easier than ever to get turned up to 11 **EN MASSE**. Which can be an utterly exhausting experience.

Just something to keep in mind both while reading this meta and while sorting through your feelings about this (and any other emotionally and narratively rough) episodes.

All that said, I may or may not have promised “a statistical analysis and marketing-based opinions” about our ~~favorite~~ cautiously enjoyed historical drama that is half stirring and compelling character development and engaging plotlines and half a cart full of wigged and hispter-beanied babies making just the worst decisions all day everyday ( **also known as:** TURN) and lest I be branded a liar, here we go.

[Get ready for some section headers because that’s how I roll, folks.]

_**Accidental Fanbases, Or How “TURN” May Not Always Be For Us:** _

I have started making deals with myself over the past three decades of media consumption, things I will and will not put up with. Trends that I began noticing and then couldn’t unnotice–particularly along lines of representation (racial, gender, sexuality, etc.), authenticity of voices and agency, and violence. As I started to dig deeper into the _why_ of these trends, I began purposefully noting statistics beyond just who was represented _on-screen_ –I started keeping count of who was writing and who was directing, who had created and from what source material, and of course who holds the power (and the purse-strings) at the corporate/production company/studio level.

The breakdown for TURN is as follows: With [a white male creator](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTurn%3A_Washington%27s_Spies&t=NTkyOTNiMDEyOWMyNjA1M2RmYTBiNWM1YTg2M2M2MjllYmI4Zjk2ZSxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D) and based on [a book written by a white man](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWashington%27s_Spies%3A_The_Story_of_America%27s_First_Spy_Ring&t=MGI1MDVmZjRkZjIzNGM2NWIyMzg1NDY0NWM1NTdkMzhhZDMxOGU5MCxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D), the trickle-down of creative representation falls along similar lines. The gender ratios between writers and directors during the first season was heavily skewed.

**S1:**

  * _Writers Total (Male/Female):_ 7 (5/2)
  * _Total Episodes with Writer Ratio (Male/Female):_ 10 (8/2)
  * _Directors Total (Male/Female):_ 10 (9/1)



The second season saw a slight shift among directors, but no increase in female writers.

**S2:**

  * _Writers Total (Male/Female):_ 7 (5/2)
  * _Total Episodes with Writer Ratio (Male/Female):_ 10 (8/2)
  * _Directors Total (Male/Female):_ 9 (6/3)
  * _Total Episodes with Director Ratio (Male/Female):_ 10 (7/3)



The third season (thus far) looks like it will likely take its lead from S2.

**S3:**

  * _Writers Total (Male/Female):_ 3 (2/1)
  * _Directors Total (Male/Female):_ 4 (3/1)



There are a few important notes to make here: first, while there seems to be some turnover with the directors (only three of the male directors from S1 returned for S2; two from S2 have already returned in S3–and there has been one new female director) there is more consistency among the writers (the only new writer in S2 was the original book’s author). The two female writers ( **Aïda Mashaka Croal** & **LaToya Morgan** ) are also women of color, whereas (from what I’ve found) all of the male writers are white. Croal and Morgan are also listed as co-producers on a number of episodes, and are joined by two other women ( **Suzanne Lauer** & **Erin Mitchell** ) listed as associate producers. There is a total of 13 producers listed, with the other 9 being (again, from what I can tell) white men.

All of this is to say that if you, like me, have found yourself wondering at some of the internal inconsistencies between the treatment of non-white male characters from episode to episode, this may be a not-insubstantial part of it. If you’re a non-white, non-cis male and have wondered why the attention and nuance paid to the female characters (sometimes drastically) fluctuates, if you’ve wondered what happens to Abigail and Cicero and Akinbode during the episodes when we don’t see them at all, if you’ve wondered why sometimes relationship dynamics are portrayed as complex and compelling when other times they seem shallow and gratuitous–this may be at least some of that _why_.

That’s not to say that the female writers and directors have produced unproblematic episodes, or that each viewer didn’t/doesn’t have different reactions to different storylines. But some of my own issues with the show–particularly in the contrasts between romantic plotlines in S1 vs. S2 (and S3)–seem to be somewhat more illuminated through these statistical analyses.

But what of it, especially as it relates to things like the Annlett subplot (where much of my own interest–at least in terms of character relationships–lies)? I have discussed it [at least briefly before](http://puckity.tumblr.com/post/144168372895/love-enough), but I think a lot of what has drawn certain factions of fans towards this ship (aside from an irrational appreciation for Burn Gorman) is the focus at its forefront that it places on Anna’s agency and wants/desires. Her other canonical romance plots (however one-sided or reciprocal; e.g. Abe, Selah, and Simcoe) have all placed her wants and desires as secondary to her male partner’s–even with Abe (as we saw in the series, not necessarily pre-their respective marriages), her role wasn’t as a true equal but rather as a worker to process his emotional labor. This is something that has become increasingly more evident post-incarceration; Abe’s entitlement to Anna’s affections and reciprocal desires has begun to spiral–and came to a head in 3.04 when, as she explicitly told him, he put his own jealousies and wants before her autonomously-chosen chance for any sort of happiness for Hewlett.

This is not meant to fully demonize Abe but rather intended to highlight the complex unravelings (for characters and relationships) that have occurred between the pilot episode and now. The show itself has also clearly become more preoccupied with Abe and Mary’s relationship (at least far more so than it was in S1), and has taken a much more nihilistic approach to its exploration of the cost of war and its effects on people’s options for (especially romantic) happy endings. At this point, all of the romantic relationships developed in the show with mutual affection and love are in shambles–Annlett, Anna/Abe, John André/Peggy Shippen–and the only ones left standing are those built on manipulation and secretly unrequited feelings (Benedict Arnold/Peggy) or those which were initially cast as shackled via duty and are still tenuous and not fully mutual (Abe/Mary). Even the rather narratively disjointed loveplot with Benjamin and the Tory widow Sara Livingston in 3.04 seemed tailor-made to reinforce to the audience that love stories–at least as we have been conditioned to conceive them–are no longer possible in this universe for as long as this war goes on. This bleakening of the show’s internal philosophies as well as the possible tug-of-war between the writers and directors in terms of Abe/Mary vs. Abe/Anna and Anna/Abe vs. Anna/Hewlett may very well be at the core of our conflicted readings of Anna’s emotionality, particularly when it comes to her relationship with Hewlett.

_**Why Hewlett May Not Be A Dead Man Walking:** _

[I know that some people are already taking 3.04 as a metaphorical death knell for Hewlett/a literal show exit for Burn, but I don’t think we should jump to extreme conclusions just yet–especially since there hasn’t been any news about Burn leaving the show or the creators/cast having any issues with him (WHO WOULD?) and TURN has a history of being flexible with accommodating other cast commitments (i.e. Aldis Hodge/Akinbode and _Underground_ ).]

So we have some (potential) character and relationship variance between writers/directors/episodes, but we also have a character and a relationship whom it appears the show’s creators were rather surprised by: Hewlett and Annlett. Track back to S1 and–although his budding admiration for Anna is evident in the few scenes that they were both in–Hewlett as a character seems to have been created specifically as a slightly foppish and far less charmingly charismatic foil for André _and_ as an out-of-his-depth, purposefully oblivious but still morally-centered foil for Simcoe (the two other central British male characters). While not explicitly the punching bag of the show, he was certainly presented as a character whose actions could be viewed as both destructively naive and bordering on the absurd (the brilliantly over the top juxtaposition of his enthusiastic rendition of “Rule Britannia!” against the freeing of the Strong slaves comes immediately to mind). While I don’t feel that the Hewlett of S1 is fundamentally different from the Hewlett of S2+, I do think that he was given much less complexity and space for growth because–frankly–he was a supporting character with a few specific narrative functions (the aforementioned foils, as well as a thematic counterbalance to Richard, particularly in Abe’s life).

 _That_ Hewlett was, dare I say it, narratively expendable. The current Hewlett is _not_.

I remain convinced that the Annlett plot–or rather, Annlett as a serious and legitimate plot–was something of a fluke on the writers’/creators’ part. One of the pitfalls of having a heavy majority of male creators and writers is that the most thoughtful and nuanced attention ends up being paid to the characters whom the writers relate the most to. It’s no secret that there is at least the assumption that [male viewers will not be able to relate to female protagonists](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fvariety.com%2F2015%2Ffilm%2Fnews%2Fwomen-lead-roles-in-movies-study-hunger-games-gone-girl-1201429016%2F&t=MzZhYWQ1MjJlMTg4YjJkYmViYjFhNzg5YWFjYzE5NTU1Njc1N2VlZixFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D), and I believe that that is equally true among male creators (with a great deal of intersection between gender and race as well). I don’t think it would be a stretch to assume that many of the main creators/writers of TURN identify with Abe over Anna; those who may not feel quite as much of an affinity for their ostensibly main character have a wide variety of complex and heroic men to choose from. There are currently 14 main cast members, and only 3 of them are women (none of them are non-white). There have been 13 recurring cast members over three seasons, with 3 being women and 2 being people of color (one man and one woman). While we may be excited to tout the women and black characters of TURN, it is worth remembering that these ratios are still seriously skewed.

So given the laundry list of male characters whom the creators/writers can identify with, I wonder how high Major Hewlett ever was on that list? He had no romantic plots in S1 (not even any flirtations) nor was he particularly noble in glorious battle (the idealization of the military man)–which are the two archetypes TURN seems to keep reserved for its male characters. There is often a fair amount of overlap (e.g. John André was, at least until the end of S2, both a powerful military man and a prolific romancer) but the desexualized main male characters seem to be either implicitly/historically heteromantic (e.g. George Washington), “married” to war/violence (e.g. Robert Rogers), or unappealingly “old” in terms of what Hollywood thinks of as a sexual expiration date (e.g. Richard Woodhull). And even those characters who are not given explicit romance/sex plots often have (sometimes clumsy) expositional inserts that clarify their (hetero)sexuality (e.g. Richard’s wife). The only young male characters who had not been given explicit romance/sex plots before now were Caleb, Ben, and Robert Townsend–but of course 3.04 introduced a fairly shoehorned-in and out-of-left-field loveplot to assure the audience that after two and a half years of holding hands with his best friend and army pal Caleb, Ben is totally into girls (too?). Caleb has also had several gratuitous lines of dialogue through the seasons to drive home the fact that–although the audience never sees any of these dalliances–he is constantly killing it with the ladies. The only ambiguous character left then is Robert, who may be allowed a chaste existence on the mis-stereotyped grounds of his religion but who will probably (given certain writers’ penchants for no-homoing) get at least a cursory heterosexualization.

And in the middle of all this masculine sexual reassurance, we had Hewlett–a character who never flirted, never made mention of any wife or past relationships, spent his evenings drinking wine and tut-tutting Richard, and didn’t even have the military acumen to back up his celibacy. I imagine that many of the male writers considered him to be something of a gentle joke, and when he first offered Anna his friendship in S2 I wonder if they had a bit of a laugh about that too. After all, how could Hewlett ever be a serious option for Anna (the prize of Setauket and of the writers’ room)?

But then, even within the first episodes of S2, something started happening. There is a significant discussion/argument in 2.03 ( _“False Flag”_ ) that occurs between Anna and Abe as they exchange information in the woods and three things happen: 1) Abe begins dismissing Anna’s suggestions and worries ( _“I don’t have time to tell you every little thing, all right?”_ ) and pressuring her to go along with his plans that she isn’t fully comfortable with, 2) Anna openly states that she jumped from the boat for Abe and that she regrets it now, and 3) Anna begins showing concern over Hewlett ( _“Using him how?”_ ) and decides to accept his friendship ostensibly to keep an eye on him while Abe is in New York. The pieces are set for Anna and Hewlett’s relationship to develop; to try and alter this trajectory would backtrack on both plot and character evolution.

Fast forward to 2.07 ( _“Valley Forge”_ ), which chronicles both Hewlett’s and Abe’s imprisonments while exploring Washington’s mental breakdown at camp. Hewlett fans especially will have distinctive memories of this episode; beyond extensively fleshing out Hewlett’s character, this is also the first time when it becomes unquestionably clear that his feelings for Anna are romantic. It also juxtaposed a sexually-coded scene (Abe in bed with Anna, both naked and kissing) with a far more affecting and romantic scene (a freezing and nearly-broken Hewlett describing the constellations to the present-in-his-mind Anna). Now there are several ways this comparison could be interpreted, but while it was evident that Anna was integral to both men’s happiness it is also clear that Abe idealization of her is as a body for (his) pleasure while Hewlett’s is as a mind and a companion. Again, the male writers/creators seem to have at least initially made the assumption that the former is a more real and–for male and female audience members alike–a more desirable and compelling expression of love. But people (particularly those who are not cis men) watching the show began to favor the latter (if they cared about the debate at all) and ultimately the show seemed to (almost begrudgingly) follow suit–to the point that episodes like 2.07 started purposefully drawing parallels between the two relationships.

By this point, it should come as no surprise to you that the connection between these two episodes is that they were the two written by women (nor should it be surprising that these two episodes, particularly _“Valley Forge”_ , put characters of color in the narrative foreground). But what this analysis more substantially suggests, at least to me, is that the female writers were leading the charge in challenging which romantic relationships were developed and how they would be developed (whether they were conscious of this fact or not) and that the writers whose episodes came after theirs had little choice but to continue what they started. They were the first ones to offer real legitimacy to both any sort of relationship between Anna and Hewlett being anything more than a rebel in-joke and to the idea that Hewlett’s love for Anna could be something worth taking seriously (both by her and by the audience).

Like it or not, the writers/creators seemed to have perhaps unwittingly unleashed the beast of Annlett and then were left trying to cultivate it within its startling (to them) popularity.

But how does any of this translate to Hewlett’s odds of survival this season?  
Well, for starters (and as I mentioned earlier), his narrative position now is much more integral (and thus much less expendable, even given his expulsion from his rank and position in Setauket and his talk of leaving the colonies for good) than it was up through–I’d say–2.05 (prior to his kidnapping and Anna’s first forced reckoning with her feelings for him). The fact that he survived that, when he could have been killed off with much the same plot effect (in terms of the spy ring and the politics of Setauket) tells me that the writers wanted to continue exploring his and Anna’s relationship. And now that the expected moment of tragically thrusting the (proverbial) knife into his back has occurred without (physically) killing him, perhaps we should ask ourselves _why_ Hewlett’s heart was broken four episodes into a ten-episode series and _why_ the betrayal came directly from Anna _without_ exposing her spy affiliations? _That_ was the revelation we were all dreading and which the narrative itself seemed to be building up to, so what’s the purpose of shattering his hopes without him learning the truth and with six more episodes to go? Could this be the show’s way of extracting their relationship from a false foundation while still allowing opportunities for it to re-develop without the lies? Now that Hewlett isn’t an officer, isn’t in imminent danger (from either Abe or Simcoe), and isn’t in Setauket (and neither is she), will they perhaps be thrown together in a new and more promising situation?

Let’s examine how TURN does deaths (and consider the fact that no main cast member–or recurring cast member, save for possibly Selah–has thus far been shipped out of the narrative/written off the show): Apart from the one-off or background character deaths, the show has made a habit of having one major character death per season. In S1 it was Ensign Baker (HE DESERVED SO MUCH BETTER), in S2 it was Nathaniel Sackett. Both characters had built up emotional resonance with other characters and sympathies with the audience, so the deaths were tragic and impactful. But both of them were also recurring cast members, not main/credited cast members (none of whom have, thus far, been killed and of which Burn has been a member since S1). Of course, there’s a first time for everything and we do know that there will be at least one main cast death before the end (should the series run its full length) with John André. But that is already known, it’s a historical necessity, and I highly doubt that they would kill him off if it wasn’t a central/unavoidable part of his real life story.

That historicity is absent with Major Edmund Hewlett, who is a loose compilation of various historical figures and narrative tropes (including [the “real” Major Hewlett](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denofgeek.com%2Fus%2Ftv%2Fturn%2F236114%2Famcs-turn-the-real-major-hewlett-and-the-setauket-church&t=MTgzNzY5OTQ1ZGJkYWQyZTExMWIyMmYyMjBiMGMyOTMzZWVmM2I1MCxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D) who, notably, survived the war). His lack of a solid real-life counterpart could be either a benefit or a risk–he is not tied to a historical fate (e.g. death) nor is he guaranteed to live past the war like the other prominent figures (but of course, even historical survival isn’t a sure thing–just ask [poor Mr. Sackett](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fsackettfamily.info%2Fg5%2Fp5383.htm&t=ZjFlNWM0ZDFmYWQxZjkyM2YwYTQ1Yjc3MTQ0ZGZjYTI2NjY4NWM3YyxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D) or [Patience Wright](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPatience_Wright&t=NTMyOThlOGY0OGFjYjdhMjZkOTgwMzA1Njk4ZmI0Y2FmOTAzYmJjNyxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D)). The writers have more freedom to do what they want with him…which begs the question, especially now that he’s been detached from his job and setting, _what_ do they want to do with him?

Again, I think it comes down to the unexpected power of Annlett. Their relationship has, since the middle of S2, consistently and mutually escalated, and one of two final scenarios seems clear post-3.04: either Hewlett is separated entirely and permanently from Anna (e.g. he goes back to Scotland and essentially disappears from the show) or his and Anna’s storylines continue to intertwine (in New York? does he find out that she’s a spy? does she confess and tell him that she did it to protect him?). I would be more worried about the former option if the show hadn’t been invested in showing how utterly untenable Anna/Abe is now (since the endgame for Hewlett leaving would almost certainly be Anna/Abe, or _maybe_ Anna/no one) and how committed Anna is to Hewlett (being willing to go with him to Scotland right away, doing absolutely everything she could to keep him safe up to and including giving up her final grasp at happiness); however, the majority of reaction posts I’ve seen seem to firmly believe that the former option is both most likely and fast approaching (if not already done).

Now there are several unpredictable ways that either scenario could play out, so let’s consider the multi-season trajectories of both characters: Anna has gone from committed to the cause (and Abe) above all to far more ambivalent and conflicted over her loyalties to finally abandoning what little she had left in her life in order to save a man who never realized that he needed to be saved. Anna’s public betrayal of Hewlett and subsequent self-villainization in his eyes–neither action planned and both committed as a desperate last resort–served to violently pull the wool from his eyes; she hurled herself off of his extremely high pedestal. And for what? She didn’t vindicate herself in the eyes of the town or the law, she didn’t reclaim any of her lost reputation, she didn’t return to Abe–in fact, she purposefully destroyed herself when she destroyed Hewlett. She has to leave her home (most likely for good), her familiarity, her entire social world up until this point without any possessions beyond the few that she can carry in a single bag. She cut all ties with Abe and in her final letter confirmed her motivations: she saved the life of a decent man. Anna states that she now has no man to love, and no man to love her–I feel that this addresses both Abe and Hewlett, for she loved/s them both. Abe shattered any lingering chance he had with her through his own selfish and destructive actions, but Anna broke Hewlett’s heart to ensure that–if she couldn’t be there to protect him as his wife–he would be forced to leave the place and the position that had put him in so much unwitting danger. His broken heart is tragic, but at least Abe (and hopefully Simcoe) can no longer touch him.

Hewlett, similarly, has gone from rigidly lawful to willing to bend and compromise to achieve common goals and finally to openly lying and accepting undeserved blame in order to continue to protect the person he loves–even as she betrays him for reasons he cannot fathom. He is broken by this event, but not irreparably; in spite of everything he has lost he retains his honour and his gentleness. Both Hewlett and Anna’s moral absolutism has been challenged and softened. If there was a moment for Hewlett to have his dedication to order and regulations crystallized it would have been when Abe’s duplicity was revealed to him (he waded into treacherous waters by allowing Abe to spy for him and this is his comeuppance!) but instead he slides further down the grey scale, ending with his noble defense and acceptance of Anna’s sudden rejection. He never asks why, never demands any answers or insists that he is now entitled to her in the face of her falsity. Likewise, Anna could have pulled back from Hewlett’s more intimate expressions and maintained a professional distance between them which would have allowed her to keep her ideological loyalties intact, but instead she moved closer and her actions became more desperate as she tried (successfully) to save him and (unsuccessfully) to stay with him.

Although it may initially feel like the writers pulled a characterizational 180 in 3.04, further consideration may ultimately reveal that this betrayal (and the probable future revelation of Anna’s spying) are most likely neither the end of Hewlett nor the end of Annlett. It’s far too rich dramatically and narratively, and it has gained enough popularity to give the writers/creators pause at gutting it. The upcoming storyline will doubtlessly be traumatic and painful (always good for drama) but all the narrative and tonal cues thus far indicate to me that, while this has already altered both characters permanently, it won’t destroy them or their relationship.

(Now, there’s always a chance that Hewlett will meet his end through a more heroic event–e.g. sacrificing himself to save Anna. But while that would be far more thematically and tonally congruent, I still feel that Hewlett is too valuable a character–as a re-partner for Anna, as a foil for Richard and Abe and Simcoe, as a potential parallel in fortitude in the face of heartbreak with André and/or in turning with Benedict Arnold–at this point for them to kill him off or send him on a one-way trip out of the colonies.)

Instead, I encourage fans to think of this as a narrative opportunity–one that has freed both Anna and Hewlett from the logistical corner that their relationship had been painted into without having Anna’s spy activities non-consensually exposed and subsequently framing her betrayal to Hewlett as a matter of morals and principles (rather than the unknown and _unknownable_ –but still somehow sympathetic to him–reason(s) behind her false accusation). If she had been revealed to be a spy, he would have had little choice but to turn her in to be tried and (most likely) executed. He could offer her the same ultimatum that he gave Abe, but the end result (full separation) would have been the same. Significantly, if she had been revealed to be a spy, Hewlett would have had to live with the suspicion that everything she did in regards to their relationship was a lie. If their wedding had gone smoothly and he found out later, how could he think anything except that she planned it all to gain access to his intelligence? She would have had no leverage in trying to convince him that she did it for _his_ benefit (as well as for her own safety). And how long–how many episodes–could they have stayed in Setauket, outrunning Abe and Simcoe and Richard, before the truth came out? Not long at all; the plot momentum was already beginning to sputter without forward propulsion. But how to propel them without revealing Anna to be a spy? That is where the hopefulness and cleverness of this particular twist comes in: now Hewlett and Anna (who were both more or less confined to Setauket before) can physically and emotionally move more freely and ignite new plotlines that go beyond the same repetitive issues that have followed them since S1. They will be separated for a time to be sure, but I would be very surprised if they don’t meet again before the end of the season. And in that meeting, they will be able to see each other more clearly: Hewlett will no longer be idolizing Anna and Anna will no longer be as restricted in keeping her secrets (since Hewlett would now be a civilian with a disgraced exit from the military so that even if he has intelligence about rebel spies his former comrades probably wouldn’t give it the time of day). Who knows, Anna may even reveal herself to him–and now her claims that she was acting out of more than just a spy’s manipulation towards him would hold more weight, since why would she sabotage her own covert operations if she didn’t actually care about him?

Then again, something else completely different may go down–who’s to say? We’ve got six more episodes to go _at least_ ; an event like the failed wedding would feel much more like a nail in the Annlett coffin in episodes 9 or 10 than it does in episode 4. Nothing–beyond the major historical events–is written in stone yet, so until I see a dead Hewlett or I read a press release about Burn leaving the show, I prefer to envision this as the catalyst for a dynamic shift with the potential to keep the Annlett flame alive in new and ultimately more tenable ways.

_**The Case of the Interviews That Say Everything and Nothing:** _

From what I could glean off of general fandom anxieties, a lot of the concern about Hewlett dying sprung up around cast and creator interviews, so let’s take one final tangential mosey through a selection of those and see if there truly is cause to worry.

A key thing to keep in mind with these types of interviews (i.e. press pieces that fall under pre-season promotional material rather than post-season analytical/reflective supplements) is that they are constructed for the primary purpose of drumming up intrigue about the upcoming storyline(s) to get viewers to turn in. For a show that claims to be a spy thriller at heart, that means playing up the precarious dangers and–you know–high-stakes spy action. It also means being as vaguely alarming as possible, so that the audience thinks: _“Oh my God, they said X! What does that mean? I’d better watch and find out!”_

Thus the cast members are extremely limited as to what they can actually say, lest they be accused of giving away all the company secrets. The creators, on the other hand, sometimes play up ideas and storylines that–upon retroactive review–weren’t actually followed through on (or, at least, not in any sort of substantive way and/or not in the way that was initially implied). I mentioned earlier that I believe Annlett was a sort of happy accident (at least for us fans); I don’t think the creators had any idea of seriously pursuing in back in S1. The positive response (whether it be to Anna’s agency in the relationship, Hewlett’s character development through it, irritation/fatigue with Anne/Abe, devotion to Burn Gorman, a mix of these or something else entirely) elicited a fundamental shift in the show’s relationship narratives that has led us to accepted marriage proposals (and their fallout) in S3. But even as recently as the lead-up to S2, Craig Silverstein was touting the ramifications of Anna’s choice to jump ship and the emphasis that it– _and Selah’s reaction to it_ –would get in S2 ([‘Turn’ EP Craig Silverstein discusses Season 1 finale, Season 2 plans](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fzap2it.com%2F2014%2F06%2Fturn-season-1-finale-season-2-spoilers-creator-interview%2F&t=Y2YyNzdjNDhiYzM1ODEwYzc3MTE3MDJjMjI2MzIxMTJkMmI3MjkzYyxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D)):

_**I’m assuming that we’ll see an extra complication to that now that Selah is alive, even though Anna chose to stay with Abe.**  
_

_Yes, [laughs] that is going to create a complication. For me, it’s more of a question of “What is Selah going to do?” There’s also one scene that we cut for time from the finale. I think it will be up online that you can see. The scene is Selah telling Anna, “We’ve got to go,” as they’re all packing up and Hewlett has struck his deal with Ben to leave the town and no further casualties. In that scene you see that Selah regards her — and again, common view at the time — really as property. His wife comes with him. In the scene, she actually reveals that she has been spying for Washington. She doesn’t reveal the names of her co-conspirators in the Culper Ring, but she tells him that and he can’t hear it. He can’t process it, and says, “Whatever, get your stuff, we’re going.” That scene was sort of meant to show that this relationship isn’t the greatest one either between Anna and Selah.  
_

**_With Hewlett right there when she left, that probably endears the Major more to her than he was before.  
_ **

_It definitely firms up her cover._

Here we see that Silverstein–even in the face of a somewhat Annlett-implied question–was still speaking of Anna/Abe as though it would be the main romantic focus of S2 (with Hewlett’s role being his retained dupe from S1). There are also comments about Selah that got no follow-through in S2 (what is even up with that guy now???). The overall tone of this comment is fully dismissive of Annlett–a S1 viewer taking these answers at face value would almost certainly not be able to anticipate the storylines of S2.

Silverstein himself has said that each season has more or less developed autonomously, without an adherence to a rigid layout. While it’s clear that he has specific places he wants to go historically and in umbrella arcs, the characters seem to evolve based at least somewhat on how they matured and were received in the prior season(s) ([‘Turn’ showrunner on the fireworks that await in season 2](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ew.com%2Farticle%2F2014%2F07%2F04%2Fturn-season-2-craig-silverstein&t=YzI2Y2QyYjIzNjMwNDVlN2ZhYTU2MmY2YmQzZmIwMGI5ODQ5NzE0ZixFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D)):

_**Have the scripts or outlines for season 2 been sitting on your desktop for more than a year, just waiting to press “Print” when you got the renewal? Or are you starting from scratch, in a room with your writers, saying, “Okay, where do we go?”**  
_

_Yup, that’s what we’re doing. We’re starting in a room, going, “Where do we go?” It’s more, “How do we go?” Because we know generally, in some broad sense, where we’re going […]  
_

_**I thought it was fascinating when I read that you initially considered killing off Simcoe in the series premiere, which is contrary to the historical record. Are you open to the idea of rewriting history, at least for some characters, just to keep people guessing?**  
_

_We are. My favorite thing, the thing that makes me the most excited but also the most comfortable is filling in gaps where we’re free to invent. […] What I feel less comfortable doing is doing something for extreme shock value, like killing Washington. Now you’re in an alternate timeline. So somewhere between those poles, you know._

This openness to flexibility is evident in character and tonal adjustments that have clearly been made since S1. Likewise, this willingness to not be entirely restricted by the real history and this aversion to “doing something for extreme shock value” bode well for the hope that the ahistorical development of something like Annlett will at least be reasonably considered in the writers’ room.

Silverstein speaks more explicitly about Annlett in his pre-S3 interview ([Turn showrunner says season 3 is The Departed set in the Revolutionary War](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ew.com%2Farticle%2F2016%2F03%2F04%2Fturn-washingtons-spies-season-3-hamilton-preview&t=MTRjYmEwZmI3NDhjOWMxNDIyNjIwMGQwZTdlYTk2NGVjNzk2ZGUwYixFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D)); note both his admitted surprise with how Anna’s “love square” has developed since S1 and his encouraging words about the final outcome:

_**Speaking of villains that we root against, where is Simcoe?**  
_

_[…] Simcoe is not the guy, if you’re Abe, that you want hunting you down. But there’s a bigger problem, which is this cold war that has flared up between Simcoe and Hewlett and is going to come to a boiling point. The town of Setauket is not big enough for the both of them, so someone’s going to have to go.  
_

_**Stuck in between them is Anna, who’s not just a link in the love triangle but in a love square, I guess you would call it, if you count Abe. What are her loyalties at this point?**  
_

_That’s one of the most intriguing questions of the season, and I think it plays out in really unexpected ways. There are incredible payoffs for what happens, and I think Heather Lind really, really outdid herself this season. She turns in an absolutely amazing performance, and she will definitely go places that I think the audience won’t expect. That love square has a great arc to it, and that’s one of the surprising things that developed — one of the things where if I was standing at the top of season 1 talking to you about it, I really couldn’t foresee this particular arc taking shape in this particular way._

In his mention of Simcoe and Hewlett, Silverstein alludes to one of them having to leave Setauket but makes no definitive suggestion as to death being the required method. And while Anna accusing Hewlett of putting her up to forging Selah’s letter definitely falls under going places that “the audience won’t expect”, the overall connotation isn’t necessarily a bad one–in fact, it could be argued that S3 has already shown us examples from the other end of that spectrum (did any of us expect Anna to plot an elopement to Scotland by episode 3?). Calling it a “great arc” and generally coding how positive and intriguing Anna’s S3 love plot will be could reasonably be taken as a good sign; if something gross or (even more) tragic happens to irreversibly negate Annlett’s development these comments would–at the very least–be seen as foolish and tone-deaf in terms of general audience sentiments (PARTICULARLY given the canonical reciprocity we got in the early episodes, and even in episode 4, of this season).

Now keeping in mind that cast members are far more limited in what they can say, Heather Lind’s (Anna Strong) S3 interviews don’t seem to be especially worrisome either ([‘Turn: Washington’s Spies’: Heather Lind Interview](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fhiddenremote.com%2F2016%2F03%2F30%2Fturn-washingtons-spies-heather-lind-interview%2F&t=MzQzYzBmYjRhNDFhMDc2OGJjNGIxMzAyN2I0YTU3ZDA2NTFhMmUyMSxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D)):

_**Going into the third season, what do you think of Anna and her change over the past two seasons within the show?**  
_

_Within the show in the third season, I would say that Anna just has even less than she had before. She doesn’t have a place in her community. She doesn’t have Abe anymore, especially in the emotional capacity she used to. I think that she is getting much more risky with the spying that she is doing and the risks that she is taking. She is sort of jumping on a limb a little bit. It’s exciting to work on, to play, and to watch, I think, to see her with nothing to lose anymore.  
_

_**Without any spoilers obviously, can you tell us any details about Season 3? Are there more spy missions for Anna, for example?**  
_

_I think the only teaser I can say about Season 3 for Anna is that she does do a lot of spying, but her risks she takes are psychological. She gets involved with the enemy side in a sneaky, treacherous way. She becomes an expert manipulator. For a character that has, I think, very strong moral standing for the most part, it’s been interesting to play a sneaky, conniving, cunning side of her. You get to see a lot more of her dark inner side. That’s exciting._

Heather certainly plays up how much Anna has lost and how desperate her position has become (both of which are absolutely true) and the risks she is willing to take because of that. Anna–who has lost her home, her husband, her childhood love, her social position, and her reputation–was _already_ taking risks in the first episodes that we hadn’t seen her even consider before. But Heather purposefully makes no mention of _what_ (or _who_ ) she is risking for, thus amping up the pre-season curiosity. Now that we have seen Anna lose _everything_ (without Hewlett being killed and without her revealing that her emotions towards him were fake), it seems clear that this next step of riskier spying is motivated by how desperate she is at the loss of Hewlett and of her home. She mentions getting “involved with the enemy side in a sneaky, treacherous way” and becoming an “expert manipulator”–two points that seem to have been read as coupled with Hewlett but now seem likely not to be. Of course Anna was involved with the enemy in a sneaky and treacherous way from the start–as a continued spy for Washington (out of choice or requirement) she was necessarily entering into a treacherous situation given her feelings for and loyalty to Hewlett (who is, after all, one tiny droplet in the ocean of the so-called “enemy”). She had to constantly manipulate in trying to keep both Hewlett and herself alive and safe. None of these statements indicate that she will be sneaky, treacherous, and/or maliciously manipulative towards Hewlett. And now these sneaky, treacherous, manipulative involvements with the enemy side have turned away from Hewlett completely; she has managed to save him and whatever missions Washington gives her going forward she will not be acting against the man who is no longer even a part of the opposing army.

For comparison in both tone and phrasing, I’d like to look at Meegan Warner’s (Mary Woodhull) S3 promotional interview ([‘Turn: Washington’s Spies’: Meegan Warner Interview](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fhiddenremote.com%2F2016%2F04%2F20%2Fturn-washingtons-spies-meegan-warner-interview%2F&t=NDJhMjVhOTZjOWVkOGNhYjk5ZGQwOTM3ODMxMDI3NjM0ZTgyYzI0MyxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D)):

_**Overall throughout shooting for Turn, what has been your favorite aspect about playing Mary?**  
_

_I’ve enjoyed the way they’ve taken her this third season. Now that she knows what her husband is up to and she’s helping him with it all. She gets a little bit more involved with the spying this season. That’s been fun to play. It’s so much more satisfying playing than just wife and mother.  
_

_**Without any spoilers, can you give us any details about Season 3? You mentioned earlier that Mary gets more involved in the spy game. Is there anything else you can tell us about her without spoiling? I know it’s a difficult question.**  
_

_I always just blabber. Mary is a lot more involved in this season. She is trying to help her husband in this thing that he has gotten himself into, so that can potentially put the Woodhulls in a little bit of trouble or danger, if you will. I don’t know if I could say more. I won’t give anything away. Darn.  
_

_**We’ve talked about Mary and her changes throughout the show. Do you take a different approach to her every season knowing what she’s been through? I guess you have an idea of where her future lies on the show.**  
_

_When we first start, I always try to find out what’s going on with my character. They don’t like to give too much away, so sometimes I don’t know where she’s going to be going during the season._

Again, what is really being given away here? She mentions getting more involved with the spying and being potentially put in “a little bit of trouble or danger” yet I don’t think the fans are particularly stressed about her survival. In terms of cast expendablity, Anna and Abe are more or less immune but Hewlett and Mary (as both main cast supporting love interests with fairly strong storylines) are probably on relatively equal footing. Meegan also explicitly states that she can’t “give anything away” and reinforces the idea that even the cast members don’t always know (and thus cannot be viewed as absolute authorities at the time of promo interviews) everything that’s happening in the next season.

 _ **The Comparative Popularity of Ships:**_  
  
In terms of audience appeal, TURN probably needs all the help that it can muster. A significant amount of fandom worry has centered around [its renewal chances each season](http://puckity.tumblr.com/post/144514689735/i-read-your-meta-on-hewlett-and-anna-and-i-really), and as the series grows the fanbase (and their investment in the continuation of the show) expands as well. Since TURN is in no way a juggernaut (and thus doesn’t have a strong enough built-in fanbase for the creators to pretty much do what they want), listening to their fans is–or at least ought to be–a relatively high priority. And although this essay started off with the claim that TURN may not necessarily always be for us (non-cis male, non-white, non-heterosexual fans), the rise of Annlett in the narrative could point to the fact that these creators are not entirely disregarding [the sections of fandom](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fentertainment.time.com%2F2012%2F09%2F12%2Fintroducing-the-new-face-of-fandom-women%2F&t=Y2ZjZDkyNTI0ZmE2NTljN2QzYjBjMjhlZTEzZDcyMzQzNDk2YTdmYSxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D) that have kept media and fan culture alive since [the original Star](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FEnterprising-Women-Television-Contemporary-Ethnography%2Fdp%2F0812213793&t=NWMxNjI5NmUwYTU4OWY1YjgzODE2OWJmNTdmYzcwNTdmYmYzN2FmNCxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D) [Trek series](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fjournal.transformativeworks.org%2Findex.php%2Ftwc%2Farticle%2Fview%2F44%2F64&t=MjQ4ZGZmMTVhYjQ3Zjg3NDUwNTU4YWU2MWJmM2JmODdlNjE4YTY5NixFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D) (and, no doubt, in much earlier iterations of fandom too). Interestingly (an perhaps luckily for Annlett), the popularity of that pairing offers a palatable compromise for creators and the studio/financial systems that are notorious for trying to excuse trite and one-dimensional stereotypes of anyone who isn’t a white cis male/any relationship that isn’t a supposed white cis male fantasy with cries of “marketability” and “relatability”: a white, heterosexual romantic pairing that is also a vocal fan favorite.

Now there are a fair amount of het pairings with passionate fanbases, but they more often than not seem to crop up in duo shows that spend almost all of their emotional energy on developing a will they-won’t they between the two leads ( **see also:** almost every female-male detective/partner procedural ever). And, of course, the canon potential of these ships skews heavily in favor of two white leads; non-white leads (black women in particular) are often iced out of canoncity (the most recent example that springs to mind is _Sleepy Hollow_ ). Even shows with decades of canon precedent for particular romantic relationships toy with and/or outright shaft female love interests of color (e.g. Iris West on _The Flash_ ). So if your ship is interracial, regardless of on-camera chemistry and fan support, it’s likely to be on shaky ground.

It should also go without saying that queer ships (again, predominantly white) fare even worse. Most of Tumblr is probably at least marginally aware of the [“Bury Your Gays”](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Ftvtropes.org%2Fpmwiki%2Fpmwiki.php%2FMain%2FBuryYourGays&t=NjBjMDRhOGM4NDVmYWZkZWM3YWQ3MWViMDhhMGFkY2MwMTBmMTVlMSxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D) trope (discussions of which were [reignited over the media’s treatment of queer female characters](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autostraddle.com%2Fall-65-dead-lesbian-and-bisexual-characters-on-tv-and-how-they-died-312315%2F&t=YjUwMmRkNDhjNDFmY2UxZTViNDViYzQxMGZjOTQxYmZlZDlkMWY1YyxFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D) in the wake of the killing off of Commander Lexa on _The 100_ ). While (white, male) faves dominate fandom dialogues and creation, the canon probability of even the most popular ships are slim-to-none. Although comparatively there is usually far more energy and commitment spent on queer ships, the media still rarely makes any of them canon–and TURN is no exception.

I’ve heard some grumblings about Annlett being the “biggest ship” in the fandom, with the most attention and creation by far. However, looking at [the English-language search results from Archive of Our Own](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Farchiveofourown.org%2Ftags%2FTurn+%2528TV+2014%2529%2Fworks&t=NDdmYTgwNGMyMTZmZmQyM2NjNjI3ZmQxZTgzOWZiY2EzMGMzNTI4YixFN2o0QzVDbw%3D%3D) (probably the most widely-used fan fiction archive platform today), it’s evident that that isn’t the case:

  * 83 Works in **Caleb Brewster/Benjamin Tallmadge**
  * 61 Works in **Edmund Hewlett/Anna Strong**
  * 21 Works in **Benjamin Tallmadge/George Washington**
  * 10 Works in **Abraham Woodhull/Mary Woodhull**
  * 9 Works in **Anna Strong/Abraham Woodhull**
  * 9 Works in **John Graves Simcoe/Anna Strong**
  * 9 Works in **John André/Peggy Shippen**
  * 8 Works in **Robert Townsend/Abraham Woodhull**
  * 8 Works in **Anna Strong/Selah Strong**
  * 8 Works in **Benedict Arnold/Benjamin Tallmadge**
  * 3 Works in **Anna Strong/Mary Woodhull**



Anyone familiar with fandom trends shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that the most popular produced-for ship (by a considerable margin, given the small fanbase) is a non-explicitly-canonical white male queer ship. Nor should they be surprised that the third most popular ship (again by a proportionally notable margin) is another non-explicitly-canonical white male queer ship. It also shouldn’t be surprising that all of the other het ships have canonical basis (as these are topical results, we cannot say what percentage of the listed works included these pairings are primary vs. ancillary); if these fics are being written in a non-AU universe, several of these pairings would exist in the text. Finally, it shouldn’t be _at all surprising_ that a femslash ship is placed at the very bottom of the list.

I’m not railing against any of these pairings (I am a supporter of several of them) nor am I making a value judgement, but from the perspective of anyone following fandom trends the appearance of a pairing that would provide minimal discomfort for the creators/studios to make canon (e.g. a male-female white couple with enough on-screen interactions to form the basis of an actual relationship) has to have been something that astute social media and marketing specialists at AMC realized could be mobilized to help retain dedicated fans while not “alienating” any “demographics”. That’s not to say that the creators/writers aren’t–at least now–committed to the relationship and storyline, but its canon deployment also makes sense for strategic fan retention.

In contrast, look at the numbers between the four canonical romantic arcs featuring Anna Strong: Anna/Abe, Anna/Selah, Anna/Simcoe, and Annlett. Arguably only two of these four should really be considered, since Anna/Selah was both a preset marriage (rather than a romantic arc) and was effectively severed in S1 and Anna/Simcoe has been consistently portrayed as dangerous and nonconsenual on Anna’s part. So that leaves Anna/Abe and Hewlett, and the numbers are telling–61 to 9. Anna/Abe was marketed and written in the first season as the great love story of the show (which can also be gleaned from Silverstein’s early interviews) but the visible fan support just wasn’t/isn’t there. Instead, fans latched onto Annlett–even those who, like me, almost never have any interest in potentially canonical het pairings–and the creators/writers eventually caught on.

At the end of the day, Ben/Caleb (Tallster) is the most popular TURN ship and–barring something very extreme happening on the show–will most likely remain so. But I think that I can say with almost absolute certainty that it will never be explicitly made canon (again, given the no-homoing history of the writers as seen in this most recent episode, the show will probably keep trying to actively convince us that they explicitly ARE NOT canon) so tapping into the second most popular fandom ship will have to do.

_**Parting Thoughts:** _

At the end of the day, TURN is a niche show with a small but engaged fanbase, and the creators know that the smartest thing they can do is appeal to what their fans claim to want to see (to the extent that they are “comfortable” doing so). That means shirtless Seth Numrich and handsy Daniel Henshall and JJ Feild sexing it up and, yes, Annlett. They have a multi-season story to tell and no renewal guarantees, so why would they want to piss off (and possibly lose) any large subgroup of fans?

I am by no means saying that it is impossible (or necessarily improbable) that they will shaft Annlett and/or kill off Hewlett (metaphorically or physically, this season or later), all I’m saying is that it would be–narratively, pragmatically, logically, financially–a really fucking stupid thing to do.

That’s why I’m not freaking out about any of this. Not yet.

And if you still can’t shake the Hewlett death willies–or if you need a little levity to keep you from sobbing over Hewlett’s devastated wedding face–at least you can enjoy the following excerpt from Meegan’s S3 interview:

_**Do you have any funny stories you can tell us about?**  
_

_It’s such a hilarious group of people. There are a lot of funny things that happen. I don’t know what I can say or what they would want me saying. There was one instance during Season 2 where Burn, who plays Hewlett, tricked me into thinking that I had a secret admirer. Because I had breakfast with him, he wrote me a little note saying, “I want you every morning. I make your eggs every morning.” Then he revealed that it was actually him playing a prank on me. I was relieved and disappointed at the same time._


End file.
